Sin has been described as "Missing the Mark" but

Page 1 of 1 (6 items)
This post has 5 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 93
painfree | Forum Activity | Posted: Thu, Feb 23 2012 9:35 AM

Sin has been described as "Missing the Mark"  but some have taught that it does not mean simply that your aim was off, but that you were shooting in the opposite/wrong direction.

Is there Logos 4.5 support for the thought that Sin is missing the mark because you are shooting in the opposite direction and if so can you describe how you find that in Logos 4.5 ?

Posts 5337
Kevin Becker | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Feb 23 2012 9:54 AM

painfree,

The way you phrased your question leaves this thread very susceptible to devolve into a theological argument. Perhaps a better question would be: How could I use Logos 4 to define sin and what does it mean to "miss the mark."

First I would suggest a Bible Search for "sin, iniquity" plus any other synonyms for sin that you can think of. Export to a passage list and write down your observations about each verse.

Next I would suggest a word study on Sin

I would then take some time to read the lexical entries on sin, plus any entries in Bible Dictionaries you might have.

What you will find is that since there are multiple words in the original languages translated as "sin" the sense of missing the mark that you aimed for is indeed one of the senses those words can communicate.

For example, a non-moral example is from Judges 20:16 "16 Among all these were 700 chosen men who were left-handed; every one could sling a stone at a hair and not miss [literally "sin"].  (ESV)

(Perhaps this goes to far astray from the forum guidelines but I suggest that sin has two sides 1) actively doing something wrong 2) failing to do something you ought to do (EDIT: regardless of motivation or aim)).

Hope this helps

Posts 1739
Ken McGuire | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Feb 23 2012 9:56 AM

The obvious answer is to do a Bible Word Study on "sin" or "ἁμαρτία".  This will give you lots of raw data for which to sift.

The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann

L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials

L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze

Posts 1206
Ward Walker | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Feb 23 2012 11:45 AM

Kenneth McGuire:

The obvious answer is to do a Bible Word Study on "sin" or "ἁμαρτία".  This will give you lots of raw data for which to sift.

Yes 

Posts 155
Pedro | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Feb 23 2012 12:11 PM

 

painfree:

Is there Logos 4.5 support for the thought that Sin is missing the mark because you are shooting in the opposite direction and if so can you describe how you find that in Logos 4.5 ?

I agree that the best and most profitable exercise would be to perform a complete word study and use your BDAG and HALOT if you have them.

In terms of other reference works, I searched my Logos library for "missing the mark" AND direction

Found the following section in the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. (I underlined and bolded the pertinent words/section)

The Essence of Sin

Although universally acknowledged by the tradition, theological interpreters have developed no consensus about the nature and root of sin, and there are no ecumenical doctrines that define the essence of sin. In the late patristic period, divergent accounts of the origin or foundation of sin developed. The Eastern monastic tradition identified eight "evil thoughts" that ascended from temptations of the flesh to spiritual dangers such as sloth and pride (Cassian). In contrast, the Western pastoral tradition formulated the sequence from a foundational pride to the outworkings of sin in lust and gluttony (Gregory the Great). In the post-Reformation West, definitions of sin were seen as church-dividing issues (cf. Trent, Sessio V; The Formula of Concord, art. 1).

The lack of consensus about the essence of sin reflects the diversity of scriptural terminology: hamartia (missing the mark), parabasis (transgression), adikia (unrighteousness), asebeia (impiety), anomia (lawlessness), ponēria (depravity), and epithymia (evil desire). Furthermore, the rich OT vocabulary of prostitution and other forms of idolatrous defilement adds distinctive color to biblical depictions of human sinfulness. Finally, the Scriptures offer divergent descriptions of the root or cause of sin: pride goes before the fall (Prov. 16:18); love of money is the root of all evil (1 Tim. 6:10); the evil tongue is the source of iniquity (James 3:6).

Two narrative moments in Scripture exemplify the difficulty of specifying the nature of sin. Genesis 3:1-7 depicts the original transgression of Adam and Eve. In a homily on this passage, the influential patristic interpreter John Chrysostom retells the story without settling on a single explanation for the fall. He moves from serpent, to Eve, to Adam, drawing in envy, negligence, ignorance, disobedience, and pride. The fall has no single, identifiable cause. The multiple directions of temptation are present in the threefold temptation of Jesus, which the patristic tradition linked to the triad of evil itemized in 1 John 2:16. An even greater plurality characterizes the Gospel accounts of Jesus' passion. An atmosphere of blindness, deception, complicity, fear, greed, collective madness, and menace characterizes the scene in Jerusalem, and the narrative resists efforts to resolve sin into a single form or cause.

The diverse and allusive biblical witness to the reality of sin encourages a fundamentally negative definition. Sin is not an ontological category. It is not a function of embodiment or finitude. For Augustine, sin is disordered desire, not desire itself. Sin is perverse love. Nor can sin be reduced to a single, fundamental motive, such as pride. Instead, sin is a temporal category. Augustine uses the image of weight, describing human personality as dynamic and always moving either upward to God or downward toward corruption. This image captures a patristic consensus that sin is a direction of life away from God. For this reason, as Karl Barth has argued most forcefully, sin is most visible and evident in contrast to the righteousness and holiness of God, revealed in Jesus Christ. The idolatry described by Paul in Rom. 1 is revealed by the possibility of true worship.

Although sin is a personal and not ontological reality, a function of will and not nature, the role of sin in the drama of salvation has definite features.

 

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier and N. T. Wright, Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (London; Grand Rapids, MI.: SPCK; Baker Academic, 2005), 749.

 

 

 

Posts 564
David P. Moore | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Feb 23 2012 7:51 PM

painfree:
Sin has been described as "Missing the Mark"  but some have taught that it does not mean simply that your aim was off, but that you were shooting in the opposite/wrong direction.

painfree,

I found this in John MacArthur's "The Body Dynamic":

"We not only fall short (hamartia), but we also go in the wrong direction (paraptoma). We try but miss and go our own way. "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death" (Prov. 14:12)."

So it seems these are two separate definitions for two different Greek words, both of which are rendered as sin in English. 

Page 1 of 1 (6 items) | RSS